Nonprofits take dim view of S.F.'s "sunshine' law

Anastasia Hendrix, OF THE EXAMINER STAFF

Published 4:00 am, Thursday, June 18, 1998

1998-06-18 04:00:00 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- San Francisco's efforts to regulate some inner workings of charities and companies that do business with The City are casting a cloud over many nonprofit agencies that fear ever-increasing governmental demands.

The Salvation Army has already dropped its $3.5 million contract with San Francisco - and cut programs serving the homeless, drug addicts and the aged - because it was unwilling to offer benefits to domestic partners of gay employees. Catholic Charities, which holds $5 million in city contracts, is lobbying hard against the new

"sunshine" law requiring nonprofits to open their financial records and hold two public meetings a year. Mayor Brown has until Friday to veto the ordinance or allow it to become law.

Many nonprofits say they worry community organizations soon will be mired in administrative minutiae instead of focusing on their missions.

"Continuing to impose restrictions, requirements and obligations targeted solely at nonprofit, community-based agencies would pose a serious threat to the delivery of services over the long run and could conceivably reduce critical human services in The City," said Bruce Fisher, executive director of Huckleberry House, a youth shelter in the Haight that holds $600,000 in service contracts with The City.

Discontent has been brewing since The City imposed perhaps its most controversial law to date - that any company or agency receiving city dollars must offer same-sex couples benefits equal to those offered married couples.

In fact, about 30 agencies came together in January to create an independent group to address these concerns politically. The group, known as the San Francisco Human Services Task Force, has met to discuss coping and compromising strategies.

"They are very concerned because it's not any specific piece of legislation, but a whole series of things coming at them, and sooner or later it impacts their ability to continue to operate in the same efficient way they are doing now," she said.

But Supervisor Tom Ammiano, who drafted both the equal benefits and the sunshine legislation, said nonprofits have nothing to fear.

"There's bound to be some growing pains," he said, "but once they get accustomed to the kind of openness we are used to in city government, they will see that it's not threatening and the results are very positive."

The new requirements being asked of nonprofits have applied to city government for years, and were originally passed to reduce discrimination while boosting public accountability in agencies that spend taxpayers' money.

Ammiano also dismissed rumors that if big nonprofits cease to do business with The City, citizens will suffer.

"That is just a scare tactic. There's plenty of organizations out there, and a lot aren't attached to organizations that sometimes have discriminatory or dogmatic positions," he said.

"Pandora's box'&lt;

Though there are many critics of Ammiano's legislation, Catholic Charities has been the most vocal, calling it "a Pandora's box of mischief."

Catholic Charities, which is run by the Archdiocese of San Francisco, has campaigned to persuade Brown to veto the proposal on the grounds that it is flawed and being undertaken too fast.

Maurice Healy, spokesman for the archdiocese, ticked off a list of the problems he sees: That it is redundant with state and federal laws already in place, is too intrusive and burdens nonprofit organizations much more than for-profit groups.

"On the face of it, two meetings a year doesn't look like a big deal, but if you look seriously at the legislation and see what can occur at these meetings, it's pretty serious," Healy said.

Cumulative effect cited&lt;

And while no single piece of legislation is too overwhelming on its own, Healy echoed the sentiment of many when he said it was the cumulative effect that was the greatest concern - not compliance with any one particular law.

Private business is just as worried. "The Chamber is concerned that The City does seem to be involving itself to an excessive degree in the business of both nonprofit and for-profit business," said Piasente.

Mark Mosher, executive director of the Committee on Jobs, an association of The City's largest corporate employers, agreed.

"This is the year that I think a handful of supervisors, for very political reasons, have tried to regulate how businesses and nonprofits function," he said.

"I think they are really trying to accomplish social goals that I think most people would say are laudatory, but doing them with regulations that in almost every case will produce the opposite effect."

A sign of the times&lt;

Supervisor Leland Yee said the new legislation was simply a sign of the times, not an attempt to foil nonprofits.

"What they have to understand is that there is a cultural shift in terms of the accountability of public dollars," he said. "And if you take public money you have to be ready and prepared for increased scrutiny."

At Glide Memorial, the Rev. Cecil Williams said he was somewhat baffled by all the fuss. None of The City's new laws has caused concern among Glide board members or administrators.

"My theology is that we need to create conditions where all people have justice and righteousness and mutual respect, and that means we should share - share in our giving and in our information." &lt;